Unit 6: Pricing models and consortial agreements

I think this was my favorite unit so far....out of many good ones.

Last week I was talking to a reference Librarian at Steenbock, and she explained to me that the different campus libraries all have their own budget and use their individual budgets to purchase resources that are then used by the whole campus. I am curious to know how this fits in with bundling though...it seems like there would be a lot of overlap between departments and database needs, and the big bundles include such a variety. Maybe there is a umbrella budget that covers the big ticket items that contain a variety of journal types.

I took a few main messages from the readings this week.
The articles that we read about the Big Deal were really interesting because it touched on the concept of how bundles both help and hurt libraries. In particular, I liked Ken Frazier's 2001 piece "The Librarian's Dilemma: Contemplating the costs of the Big Deal" about the psychology of how individual parties lose sight of the big picture when it comes to short-term gain.
In psychology 101, years ago, I read about a similar experiment to the one Ken Frazier describes, where participants could play a game. In the game they could co-operate with each other, and be gauranteed small success, or work against each other with the possibility of bigger success, at the cost of the greater good. And, just as in Frazier's article, the kicker is that they don't know what choices the other participants are making. It always stuck with me as a truism about the way people operate. Its not that we are not willing to work together, but no one wants to be the shmuck who gives up things when no one else is giving them up.
Frazier's point (that I took) is that libraries need to be willing to develop a trust relationship with each other that will permit them to take united stands against publishers when the time calls for it, and support alternative publishing.

The article about journal pricing in the 1930s and 1980s (Astle & Hamaker, 1988) was also very interesting, and seemed to mirror some of the ideas in Frazier's piece (even though it was not written with electronic resources in mind). It echoed the message that libraries hurt themselves when they become complacent about pricing. A quote within the article kind of previewed what Frazier discussed happening in later times: "American libraries, by their ability and willingness to pay, have enabled publishers to persist in charging exorbitant prices" (p.12).
A longer quote from the Astle & Hamaker article tied into Frazier's concept of "disintermediation"--where libraries are become passive vessels for publishers:

The academic and research library community must become actively involved in the development and implementation of alternative technologies for information distribution as an adjunct to print sources if they are to maintain their central place in the information chain (p.31).

The other readings were also very good, and talked in more detail about pricing considerations, consortia, and publisher-library conflict.

In addition, there were two speakers from WILS (Wisconsin Library Services) who came to discuss how WILS negotiates with vendors on behalf of libraries and how ILL works.


References:

• Journal publishing: Pricing and structural issues in the 1930s and the 1980s, Astle, D. & Hamaker, C. (1988). Advances in Serials Management 2, 1-36.
• The librarian's dilemma: Contemplating the costs of the "big deal". Frazier, K. (2001).. D-Lib Magazine 7 (3).

Week 5: E reserves, Fair Use and GSU

The readings this week were about the fair use guidelines, how they applied to E-Reserves, and a real life case featuring Georgia State University.

In class we discussed three sets of fair use guidelines discussed in the readings:

1. Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copyright (Approved by Congress 1976)

1. Brevity--Article of 2,500 words or less or excerpt of 1000 words or 10%
2. Spontaneity--Use must be from individual teacher and a directive from the Institution. Use should be for late-breaking, current information
3. Cumulative effects--Work can be used for only one course; not used from term to term; only one article/work per author and no more than three from a periodical volume

2. ALA Recommendations (1982)

I. Presents the four fair use factors of Title 17, 107.
II. Unrestricted photocopying:
a.)Writing published before Jan 1, 1978 that has not been copyrighted
b.) Published works with expired copyright.
c.) Unpublished works. (pre Jan1, 1978)
d.) U.S. Gov Publications
III.Permissible photocopying of copyrighted works.
a.) Research and preparing for teaching--chapter, article, story, essay, poem, chart.
b.) Classroom uses--One semester, only one copy/student, copyright notice, no profit.
c.) Library Reserve Uses

3. CONFU (1991)

Educational Fair Use Guidelines for Educational Multimedia is the only one of these three fair use guidelines to actually be formulated with digital works in mind. It is a long set, so better to follow the link.

We specifically discussed the case of Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publications vs. individuals at Georgia State University for "systematic, widespread and unauthorized copying and distribution of a vast amount of copyrighted works." I thought perhaps the library could be protected by claiming the "good faith" defense. However, it seems that their original policy had been out of the mainstream enough to make it a target.
Because there is no clear set of guidelines, libraries devise their own policies regarding fair use and distribution. The trick seems to be to maintain the push/pull balance between academic users (who need to take stands on fair use, because they are the major stakeholders in the survival of fair use practices)and academic publishers (who rightly want to not give away all of their products for free). Giving in too much to publishers could mean erosion of fair use practice, but there are limits that will need to be followed.